Columns

eciding to make a charitable contribution can arise from a desire to help others, a passionate commitment to a cause or the aim to give back to a group that once helped you or a loved one. Choosing which organizations you want to support can be difficult. There are over a million public charities in the United States according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, and every dollar you give to Charity A is a dollar you might not be able to match for Charity B.

Whether it’s a friend’s charity run or supporting an animal rescue, often the decision to give comes down to a mix of internal and external factors. You have to determine which causes are most important to you, and with outside help you can compare how effective various charities are at using their funding.

Many non-profits do incredible work, but it’s always smart to verify their claims. You can start your due diligence by double checking an organization’s tax-exempt status using the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Exempt Organizations Select Check Tool.

New Mexico is in the spotlight with three high-profile campaign visits, but another big day looms. The Libertarian Party will choose its candidate for president at the end of May. Gary Johnson is getting national attention from the left and the right - especially from the right - as the anti-Trump. Some pundits speculate that Johnson could even draw disgruntled Bernie supporters.
Last week our former governor notched 10 percent support in a Fox News poll. Compare that with the 1 percent Johnson polled in 2012.
It’s within striking distance of the 15 percent he needs to be part of televised debates. He sweetened his ticket with former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld as vice president. Weld is a Republican who was popular in a blue state.
The Libertarians will probably be the only non-mainstream party to appear on the ballot in all 50 states. Which is why their Florida convention – and Gary Johnson – will draw unprecedented scrutiny.
All this and he looks way better without a shirt than Vladimir Putin, said blogger Emily Zanotti.

Back during Memorial Day 2014, I wrote a piece on five brothers who served in World War II.
I was blown-away impressed by the Bailey boys, from my neck of the woods in Western Pennsylvania, and still am. Imagine my surprise when a reader responded with a package of clippings informing me of his family, which had seven brothers in the war.
Yes, seven.
His name is Ted, and his parents were Stella and Walter Pietkiewicz, Polish immigrants in Pittsburgh.
I wrote up that story, thinking no family could out-do the Pietkiewicz crew. I soon learned I was wrong.
That article led to a bunch of mail composed by computers and typewriters alike. One was sent by Stanley Freedman reporting the seven sons of Fanny Greco. They lived in Providence, Rhode Island.
All served in World War II.
Another came from Tina Link of Delphos, Ohio, who told me of her maternal grandmother, “Mrs. John Bohnlein,” as the attached September 1945 newspaper clip identified this selfless mother, who likewise lent seven sons to the cause.
Then followed an email from Shayne Ghere informing me of Roy and Lillie Ghere.
They parented 17 children in tiny Arcola, Ill. Seven of their boys served in World War II.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was....”
These famously taut lines gain new currency from time to time. Now is such a time.
Our land is besieged with cross fire of two words, “conservative” and “liberal.” With all said, they impute every vice borne in humans. The flaws are not confined to fiscal blunders.
All camps deploy the blunted bywords to attack everything from choices of foods and poster phrases to word meanings themselves. “Liar, liar” is the prevailing counter point.
Would such deeds make more sense viewed differently? A thought or two can be drawn from “ecology.” As a framework for people, consider an ecosystem.
An ecosystem is made stronger by diversity, which works to stabilize and sustain the whole. Species eat different foods. Species find food and water in different ways. Species move differently and face different risks and ailments.
Environmental conditions at every level constantly change. To meet change, diversity increases the chance of life forms able to adapt and thrive.

The state Game Commission meets Aug. 27 to consider trapping cougars, hunting bears and saving wolves.
Not on the agenda is another endangered species: the New Mexico Hunter.
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the number of hunters nationwide declined slightly over the 20 years from1991-2011, even as total population rose by nearly a quarter.
Here in New Mexico, the number of hunting licenses issued fell about 9 percent between 2004 and 2013.
That may be a reflection of changing demographics. As the Baby Boom enters our creaky and overweight “Golden Years,” more and more of us are reluctant to trade the comforts of the man-cave and a warm bed for the pleasure of tramping the mountains on a frosty fall morning.
Another factor may be increasing urbanization, with more of us living in the city rather than in the small town farm-and-ranch country where hunting is traditional.
Whatever the cause, a decline in hunting participation is bad news both for the state’s economy and the wildlife we share the land with.
New Mexico’s 87,000 hunters spent more than $265 million on their sport in 2013 and contributed another $61 million to the state’s economy in labor, income and taxes, according to Game and Fish.

For critics of the Iranian nuclear deal: I worked for years (1980-1988) at the IAEA in Vienna and a total of 15-plus years overseas in, guess what? Uranium resources, exploration, development and mining, as well as other focus areas in the nuclear fuel cycle, including nuclear waste management and decommissioning.
To place this in context, it has been 35 years since I first sat down at a table with an Iranian counterpart. I cannot dismiss the safeguards challenges, but I believe that they are manageable.
I’m quite familiar with the nuclear capabilities of most countries in that area, including Iran.
Every president except Barack Obama since the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 has been a badly misguided because you do not cut off communications with an enemy or potential enemy because it drives them deeper into a certain desperation that results in the worst outcome. Are you not familiar with the street riots against the mullahs in Teheran during the last election?
The Iranians are ready to negotiate; their people want to reintegrate into the world society. So why tell ’em “Stuff it!?”
Had we done that with the former Soviet Union, I think most of the world would be a cinder by now.

A recent story in the Chronicle of Higher Education suggests that Michael LaCour, a UCLA graduate student, has fabricated data for another journal article.
Science magazine has retracted the article, due to “the misrepresentation of survey incentives, the false sponsorship statement, and LaCour’s inability to produce original data.” Unfortunately, this is only the latest in a long string of integrity issues in research publications.
The scary reality, though, is not the articles that have been found to be questionable, but the possibility of many other fabricated articles that have not been discovered and retracted.
Meanwhile, John Bohannon intentionally published some weak and questionable findings related to chocolate just to demonstrate how quickly non-refereed journals will snatch up research. He claims, “I fooled millions into thinking chocolate helps weight loss.” Sign me up!
The Office of Research Integrity oversees integrity on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They are currently investigating 50 cases of research misconduct.
Granted, the vast majority of published research is carefully reviewed and published with full integrity (we think). Nevertheless, one should be properly skeptical of the scientific claims. How can we be more informed consumers of research claims?

“What’s past is prologue,” Shakespeare said. How many times do we have to combat the use of pesticides?
Rachel Carson’s lessons in “Silent Spring” must be revisited today. The chemical industry has become stronger in protecting and increasing its use of pesticides and poisons.
Now, two of the agro giants, Dow and Monsanto, are battling each other’s products to kill super weeds, which were created by the use of pesticides in the first place.
Hummingbirds, as well as other pollinators, are vital to our ecosystem. Bees, butterflies, bats, wasps, beetles, the air and some mammals help pollinate our flowers and plant foods.
Their disappearance from the Earth is monstrous and is due in large part to the use of pesticides.
Because some Los Alamos residents are reporting the absence or dwindling numbers of hummingbirds, it is important to do what we can to reduce pesticide use.
Mary Deinilein, an education specialist at the Smithsonian National Zoo Migratory Bird Center explains how these chemicals affect non-targeted pests.
These are some possible direct effects on survival and/or reproduction:

A political science colleague sent me an article documenting President Barack Obama’s dismal economic record, and he asked me for added details and perspective. Here it goes:
True, economic growth under Obama has been sluggish, fitful, faltering, historically weak, etc.
However, if you look at the charts in the article — especially the second and third — you can see that United States economic growth has been trending downward for several decades. Conclusion: Our economic woes did not begin with Barack Obama.
However, he has done nothing to reverse the trend. On the contrary, he has doubled down on the very policies that have hampered economic growth.
The headwinds opposing economic growth are generated by what Ronald Reagan referred to as “the government disease.” No president has advocated, championed, and imposed more harmful government intervention than Barack Obama.
Here’s a short list of those interventions: